Before One Knew The Rules - Common Error

[ColinL]

A one-ball condition in a junior trounament?  Is that not unusual?

[DrvFrShow]

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

The downside to this is that for a lot of lateral water hazards, your only option would have been stroke and distance.  I've seen many water hazards which paralleled the hole, with out of bounds just past the hazard.  That would usually leave no line to drop on which was both in bounds and not in the hazard.  This is the reason that the lateral water hazard rule was written, and why a hazard should only be marked as such when a significant part of its expanse has this issue.  

If the hazard or the hole is laid out in such a manner that the regular water hazard rule will be be effective for a significant part of its margin, then the marking should change from red to yellow for the section where that is reasonable. 

I just took two strokes and re-played. If it was on the tee, re-tee. It's all I knew how to do. That's what my neighbor told me to do because that's all he knew. 

[Rulesman]

As a very early beginner, whiffs were not uncommon. Having heard the call 'That's one!' many times, I believed it for about 12 months.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Rulesman

[rogolf]

7 hours ago, ColinL said:

A one-ball condition in a junior trounament?  Is that not unusual?

I would use ignorant, irresponsible or some other synonyms to describe any Committee that implemented that condition of competition for a junior tournament (other than perhaps the USGA Jr).

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

 (other than perhaps the USGA Jr).

It was on the USGA Championships (unqualified) hard card in 2013

[Fourputt]

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

Fortunately it didn't happen to me but I was playing in a junior tournament and one of the guys I was playing with hit a provisional that was a different brand that the one he originally teed off with. I hadn't been playing"seriously" for that long and wasn't really aware of the one-ball rule. The third player in the group called him out on it and the kid was penalized.

A junior tournament with the one ball condition in effect?  That's one I've never come across.  Such conditions are usually reserved for extremely high level competitions, or those that want to be thought of that way, rightly or not.

[mvmac]

On 11/20/2015, 9:13:20, Fourputt said:

A junior tournament with the one ball condition in effect?  That's one I've never come across.  Such conditions are usually reserved for extremely high level competitions, or those that want to be thought of that way, rightly or not.

It certainly wasn't extremely high level but it is a big tournament for the area, it was the San Francisco Junior City.

[Abu3baid]

On November 20, 2015 at 5:16:53 PM, Rulesman said:

As a very early beginner, whiffs were not uncommon. Having heard the call 'That's one!' many times, I believed it for about 12 months.

You mean a whiff doesn't count as a stroke?  Or just on the tee it doesn't.

[rogolf]

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

It certainly wasn't extremely high level but it is a big tournament for the area, it was the San Francisco Junior City.

Doesn't qualify as  a "high-level" or "elite, skilled" competition imo.  It's a trap for the players.

[Fourputt]

38 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

You mean a whiff doesn't count as a stroke?  Or just on the tee it doesn't.

A whiff always counts as a stroke.  Where I most often hear "That's one!" is when someone accidentally bumps the ball off the tee, and that does not count as a stroke.

5 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Doesn't qualify as  a "high-level" or "elite, skilled" competition imo.  It's a trap for the players.

I tend to agree.  It's a competition that's trying to be seen as more than it really is.  Totally unnecessary condition in a city tournament.

[Abu3baid]

10 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

A whiff always counts as a stroke.  Where I most often hear "That's one!" is when someone accidentally bumps the ball off the tee, and that does not count as a stroke.

I tend to agree.  It's a competition that's trying to be seen as more than it really is.  Totally unnecessary condition in a city tournament.

I knew about the bumping off the tee, but no one has ever called that nor is it considered a whiff.. At its root a whiff is a swing and a miss as far as I know.. 

Thats why I am asking for clarification and thought maybe there is a rule that I didn't hear about.. ( which is always a possibility :) )

[mvmac]

17 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Doesn't qualify as  a "high-level" or "elite, skilled" competition imo.  It's a trap for the players.

My bad, meant to say, "it certainly wasn't extreme high level". It was a big deal for players in the area and has a great history to it but it wasn't a national invitational or something like that.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I tend to agree.  It's a competition that's trying to be seen as more than it really is.  Totally unnecessary condition in a city tournament.

I disagree.

Not for nothing, but the one-ball condition also makes it more difficult to cheat by saying "oh, yeah, that was my ball. I switched two holes ago."

Hell, the EDGA (E = Erie) does the one-ball condition. Not for junior events, but for everything else. And Erie is not San Francisco. The San Francisco Junior sounds like it could be a fairly big deal.

[rogolf]

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

I disagree.

Not for nothing, but the one-ball condition also makes it more difficult to cheat by saying "oh, yeah, that was my ball. I switched two holes ago."

Hell, the EDGA (E = Erie) does the one-ball condition. Not for junior events, but for everything else. And Erie is not San Francisco. The San Francisco Junior sounds like it could be a fairly big deal.

Cheaters cheat regardless of the Rules.

Imo, the one-ball condition has outlived its purpose(s), if it ever had any.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Cheaters cheat regardless of the Rules.

Imo, the one-ball condition has outlived its purpose(s), if it ever had any.

Yes, we've been over this before. I still disagree.

And cheaters cheat, yes, but one can make it more difficult on them, too.

[rogolf]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes, we've been over this before. I still disagree.

And cheaters cheat, yes, but one can make it more difficult on them, too.

The purpose of the Rules is not to prevent cheating, it is to define how the game is to be played.  The one-ball condition should never be implemented to "prevent cheating".  That approach takes a dim view of all the other players.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, rogolf said:

The purpose of the Rules is not to prevent cheating, it is to define how the game is to be played.  The one-ball condition should never be implemented to "prevent cheating".  That approach takes a dim view of all the other players.

I didn't say it was implemented to prevent cheating. Nice job putting that in quotes too as if I said it and you were quoting me.

Specifically, I said "not for nothing" which implies that it doesn't mean much, but it means a bit more than "nothing."

Let's get back to the topic, now, please. We've been over this before.

[ColinL]

On 20 November 2015 07:09:01, mvmac said:

Fortunately it didn't happen to me but I was playing in a junior tournament and one of the guys I was playing with hit a provisional that was a different brand that the one he originally teed off with. I hadn't been playing"seriously" for that long and wasn't really aware of the one-ball rule. The third player in the group called him out on it and the kid was penalized.

It has just  occurred to me that not knowing  of a one-ball rule in a tournament is not so much a general ignorance of the rules but more a failure to read the conditions of the tournament which you might expect to have been handed out to the competitors.  Carelessness.

Edited November 21, 2015 by ColinL